Political discourse during the european economic crisis: Epistemic stance and legitimizing strategies in greek political discourse (2010-2012)

• Autores: Georgios-alexandros Polymeneas
• Directores de la Tesis: Teun A. van Dijk (dir. tes.)
• Lectura: En la Universitat Pompeu Fabra ( España ) en 2018
• Idioma: español
• Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Dionysis Goutsos (presid.), Montserrat González Condom (secret.), Andrés Di Masso Tarditti (voc.)
• Programa de doctorado: Programa de Doctorado en Traducción y Ciencias del Lenguaje por la Universidad Pompeu Fabra
• Materias:
  • Lingüística
• Enlaces
  • Tesis en acceso abierto en: TDX
• Resumen

  • El presente estudio establece un marco multidisciplinar que pretende analizar el significado evidencial del discurso político griego durante la crisis de la deuda europea; su objetivo, más allá de un mero análisis de contenido, es arrojar luz sobre el modo en que las élites políticas se posicionan en relación con la información que comunican, tomando en consideración también las diversas metas ideológicas y políticas relacionadas con la legitimación de la austeridad. Nuestra afirmación principal es que la construcción del significado evidencial es una forma de acto social; por tanto el estudio se desarrolla según un enfoque que potencia los acercamientos discursivos a posiciones epistémicas, junto con una pormenorizada teoría del contexto. Al señalar la sensibilidad contextual de la expresión del significado evidencial, explicitamos los tipos de posición epistémica que adoptan los actores políticos procedentes de instituciones de diversa índole, además de su función legitimadora, pues potencian la autoridad y el rango evidencial de los que hace gala el hablante a la hora de ganar control epistémico sobre la audiencia.

    Overview of rhe study Chapter 1 Chapter 1 sketches the analytical framework of the present study, which features a triangular approach to the study of knowledge production within the Greek political context of the sovereign debt crisis. This approach features the co-articulation of discursive and social parameters, as well as of cognitive parameters, which mediate the previous two. General notions that were relevant to the study of knowledge production in the Greek political setting are preliminarily defined here, and included social and political cognition (cognitive component); evidentiality (linguistic/discursive component) and legitimization (social component). Especially for evidentiality, a brief overview was provided in its use in political settings, but most importantly an overview of its current formal analysis in Greek, which proved insufficient for a discourse-oriented study of evidential meaning.

    The above scheme was implemented in a specific historical and political context, the first two years of the Greek crisis (2010-2012) characterized by the implementation of the 3-year bail-out program of financial support, supervised by the IMF-ECB-EC “troika”. Therefore, it was necessary for the political context of the study to be considered in relation to the ideological and social implications of those programs. Our main point is to justify that this study is a problem-oriented study as it conceived austerity as a social problem that broadens inequalities within society.

    More crucially, in Chapter 1 the main and secondary objectives of the study are outlined, concerning the detailed analysis of various Epistemic Stance types in the Greek political discourse and their relation with legitimization process.

    Last, the precedent discussion that takes place in Chapter 1 led us to explicitly state the hypothesis of the study, which included the various ES types found in the data as well as their context-depended strategic use by the political actors for legitimizing purposes in relation with the reproduction of social and economic inequalities through austerity.

    Chapter 2 Chapter 2 is dedicated to the theoretical framework of the study. Following the triangular analytical scheme (discourse-cognition-society) introduced in Chapter 1, the chapter is divided into three parts. The first part (2.1.-2.4.) is concerned with evidentiality and the epistemic stance. The second part (2.5.) demonstrates how a sociocognitive approach in general and the theory of context models in particular can substantially contribute to a systematic analysis of the discursive construction of evidential meaning. The third part (2.6.) relates with the social aspect of the triangle, the legitimization process.

    The first part provides a detailed overview of both theoretical issues related with the notions, and the various classifications proposed by the relevant literature. More particularly, the inadequacy of formal and narrow approaches to evidential meaning is shown, when the analysis of expression and construction of knowledge moves beyond the clause level and is applied to real life communication. Our main point here is that we cannot examine how knowledge is produced, shared and comprehended without paying attention to what actually happens on the discursive level of analysis, especially in languages such as Modern Greek that lack grammatical markers for evidentiality. For that reason, we opted for a dynamic concept, that of the Epistemic Stance, which takes into consideration not only the mere marking of knowledge, but also interactional and contextual parameters that influence the expression of knowledge within discursive settings. Reviewing, though, the relevant literature it appears that despite the fact that all researchers recognized the context-depended character of the construction of evidential meaning, they did not systematically theorize the context within which the discourse is produce.

    This brings us to the second point, elaborated in the second part of the study’s theoretical background: studying the construction of evidential meaning in discourse and how speakers position themselves towards the knowledge they communicate must be done in relation to the contextual parameters of each communicative situation. This allows us not only to highlight the relative character of knowledge (a position that contrasts the traditional approaches to evidentiality) or to move beyond predetermined closed sets of linguistic resources and include in our analysis less studied ones, as well as complex discursive structures, but it also allowed us to better understand and explain the epistemic mismatches between the actual domain of evidence from which knowledge was acquired and how it was represented in discourse; to spell out similarities and differences in knowledge expression across different speakers, genres and settings; and to examine the pragmatic, rhetorical and, more crucially, ideological implications triggered by the use of ES types in specific communicative situations within a historical context.

    For that reason, we inform our analysis of ES types with the theory of context models developed within the socio-cognitive approach to discourse. Concretely, we see the relevance of context models to the expression, distribution and acquisition of knowledge, in general, and evidentiality in particular, within discursive settings. In addition, the process of evidential meaning construction is highlighted as primarily cognitive, since it involves the activation of old context models as a new communicative situation takes place. In Chapter 4, this interplay between old and new context models is examined as it influences not only the realization of the various ES types, but also the epistemic mismatches occurring in our data.

    As it is not only important to see the interplay between the linguistic and social component, but also to understand how this indirect relationship is mediated by a cognitive interface, a socio-cognitive approach provides a thorough framework relevant to the scope and aims of our study. The social parameters are not merely reflected in discursive structures. Rather, they are interpreted in the first place by the speakers who, on the basis of their own context models make choices appropriate to the situations in which they were engaged.

    Assuming a) only a discourse-oriented approach to the construction of evidential meaning is adequate to illustrate how knowledge is produced, negotiated and shared in real life communication, in general and in the Greek political setting in particular; and b) such analysis cannot be conducted without a detailed framework of how contexts influence text and talk, the issue of strategic uses of various ES types is discussed. It is shown that the marking of the source of knowledge and the expression by the speakers of some degree of commitment towards the knowledge they communicated is related with the legitimization process. The third part of the study’s theoretical background is dedicated to legitimization in institutional and political settings. Aligned with the need for methodological distinction between legitimization of assertion and legitimization of actions, as proposed by Hart (2010), we elaborate on the concept of legitimization strategy and explain how it is used to express the speakers’ position regarding their commitment to the truth of their assertions and to the evidence that supports it; and 2) to influence the hearers’ epistemic stance towards information conveyed in a way that aligns with the interests of the speakers.

    Chapter 3 Chapter 3 designates the methodology adopted in the present study in order to examine both the macro- and micro levels of the main hypothesis of the thesis. Also, the data analyzed from each political actor is presented in detail. Regarding the methodology, in the present study, the triangular scheme of classification of ES types proposed by Marín-Arrese is adopted, with some minor differentiations in terminology, and features three evidential value domains of evidence (personal experience; cognitive; discursive); mode of knowing (direct/indirect; and source of knowledge (Self/Other). Within this framework, the various types of EPS (we used the term Epistemic Stance types instead) were embedded, as identified by Mushin.

    However, our analysis goes beyond the linguistic resources examined by Mushin, so either the scope of each EPS type is broadened or new linguistic resources is taken into consideration, such as specific categories of verbs or speech acts or complex discursive structures. The crucial component is that the above scheme was informed by a detailed theory of context. As for the study of epistemic stance strategies, we follow the above mentioned macro-division between attributed and averred assertions which is supplemented by an approach made by Marín-Arrese to the expression of the speaker’s salience in the utterance; that of the speaker’s responsibility towards the assertions; and the degree of the speaker’s commitment.

    Chapter 4 In chapter 4 we examine how the various ES types were realized by the six political actors within the particular political and historical context (2010-2012) of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. Following the distinctions between the Personal Experience domain of evidence; Cognitive domain of evidence and Discursive domain of evidence, we examine how various ES types are realized in discourse.

    Regarding the Personal Experience domain of evidence, it appears that the political actors represented the knowledge they communicated as originating in that particular domain when they wanted to appear fully engaged with the utterance they communicate. Regardless of whether the knowledge expressed has an emotional or sensory basis, the adoption of Personal Experience ES type is to a great extent controlled by contextual parameters, because on many occasions it signaled an epistemic mismatch. What is more, the mismatches observed indicate a reverse relationship in terms of validity. To put it simply, even though political actors know that this domain is is typically considered less reliable (because only the speaker can have access to such information), they opted to discursively express their knowledge as originating from emotions or senses—even when the original source of information could have been more reliable. As shown, such choices might have been seen to threaten the epistemic status of knowledge, but they were after all totally justified by the very nature of the communicative situations in which they appeared. The political actors were not so much interested in presenting an utterance having the maximum degree of validity. Rather, on the basis of their own personal context model they considered it more appropriate to enhance their own credibility as sources of information by assuming full personal responsibility for the utterances they communicated.

    In the Cognitive domain of evidence (4.2.) we examine Inferential ES type, the expression by which the political actors explicitly shared (inter)personal knowledge as well as others’ knowledge, and the expression indexing a counter factual state of affairs. Again, it is demonstrated how crucial the intervention of the context is to the construction of evidential meaning. A systematic analysis of the speakers’ context models, proved that most of the linguistic choices made had little to do with epistemic accuracy, but they were related with other, interactional (negotiation of knowledge, epistemic mis(alignment, knowledge relations among the participants) and cognitive parameters (the transformation of mere belief into personal/shared knowledge). Also, in cases in which they exploited resources, such as inferences or counterfactual expressions, that typically downplayed the epistemic status of the utterances, political actors managed to boost their own credibility by inscribing full responsibility for their assessments.

    The last domain of evidence is the discursive one, which in the present study is examined beyond the traditional monolithic approaches that have understood discourse-based evidence in formal and decontextualized terms (“hearsay”; “testimony”. It is demonstrated that this domain of evidence has special symbolic significance within the field of Greek politics. What is more, contrary to the mainstream traditional view, according to which the representation of a discourse of a third source is an objective way to represent knowledge, it is illustrated that Greek political actors, when adopting a Discursive ES, considered it relevant to make explicit evaluations about the validity of a third party’s discourse.

    Apart from the three separate domains of evidence, in Chapter 4 we also examine expressions signaling truth/factual validity. These expressions realized Factual ES type. It is not surprising to note that this type of ES was broadly used by the political actors. Obviously it is a type with a high degree of validity since it represents knowledge as shared and commonly accepted; as an undisputed “fact”. At the same time, as the original domain of evidence is mitigated, the authority and the credibility of the political actor is enhanced. As will be commented on below, in the context models constructed by the Greek political actors two aims seem to be relevant to all communicative situations. First, the positive self-presentation as a credible source and second, the exploitation to the greatest extent possible of the assumed authority of their institutional role.

    Before moving to the discussion of Chapter 5, it is important to mention the following. Contrary to what is observed in various sentence-isolated analyses of evidentiality, it becomes clear in our study that, as discourse unfolds, speakers may not express as particular ES type in a sentence. The actual discourse production appears far more complex. The speakers constantly switch between using different ES types in their discourse, and they may also embed one ES type into another. Our analysis did not find some type of pattern that could explain the phenomenon. Each case is unique and it can be explained only by taking into account various micro-contextual parameters, as well as the nature of online, oral discourse production, since most of the data examined were oral genres and some of them shared a high interactional character. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is a very vivid instantiation of the high context-dependency of knowledge expression, communication and communication in real life communicative settings.

    Chapter 5 The last analytical Chapter concerns the strategic uses of the various ES types as a means for legitimization. In order to better understand the function of legitimization strategies in relation with both a specific communicative situation as well as with a particular historical period, we conduct a micro-analysis of three speeches delivered by the three Prime Ministers, Papandreou, Papademos and Samaras. Within the general methodological framework of the study, this macro-analysis can be seen as complementary to the macro-perspective analysis that takes place in Chapter 4. More specifically, we examine the legitimization of assertions (strategies of objectification and subjectification), but as demonstrated throughout the whole chapter, the distinction between legitimization of assertions and legitimization of actions is useful for methodological reasons, but it appears in the analysis that they largely intersect. Along with the epistemic aspect of legitimization, there are a lot of “side effects” operating, related to the legitimization of actions.

    In particular, we adopt a macro-distinction between attributed and averred assertions in order to provide a detailed overview of how legitimization strategies operate in the Greek political discourse. It is shown (5.3.) that through the selective use of source tagging, the political actors manage to index (mis)aligment from/with third sources and, hence, to enhance their own credibility as the sources of information. It is illustrated that the linguistic choices by which an assertion is attributed to a third source or, in other words, the way in which the political actors realize their Discursive ES, is largely controlled by the context of the communicative situation and has little to do with the original evidential values of the information communicated. Depending on the aims that have to be accomplished, we see that political actors may attribute to a third reliable and powerful source their own beliefs, opinions etc. making them sound more “objective” and valid. On the contrary, they may also attribute to a third source, namely a political opponent, negative facts, verified, and as such having no need to originate in a particular source, in order to delegitimize the discourse of their opponents. Also, attributed utterances contribute to the enactment of several semantic legitimization strategies which mostly relate to the justification of the austerity policies that were discussed in the communicative situation under consideration in Chapter 5.

    It is likely that the averred assertions that are examined in (5.4.) provide an index of how political actors interpret the communicative situation in which they are engaged, and how they shape their speech in order to accomplish several aims and goals represented in the speakers’ context models. Averred assertions are further divided into those acquired from an evidential domain (Personal Experience, Cognitive), and those that do not overtly originate in a particular domain. It becomes evident from the analysis that in both occasions the speakers strategically realized the various ES types in close relation with how they had subjectively interpreted the properties of the communicative situation in which they participated as well as with how they had interpreted the qualifications of their institutional role. Our point is that the three political actors tended to neglect the various types of evidence per se and they intentionally exploited the evidential values associated with each type of evidence, along with the status of their institutional role, in order to construct themselves as credible sources with established authority. Instead of providing valid knowledge in accordance to accepted epistemic criteria, they showed more interest in using the status of those criteria for enhancing their own evidential standing to such an extent that their own discourse became a self-legitimizing device. In this respect, even in cases in which an objectification strategy occurred it was actually the product of the speakers’ subjective qualification of the information conveyed as commonly accepted and shared, and hence represented as “fact”.

    It must be noted that all three political actors shared the same interpretation about how they should discursively perform their role as Prime Ministers. This indicates that context models are personal, but they also have a strong social aspect because many of the representations of the various contextual properties are shared among different speakers and groups. On the other hand, our analysis also show the highly contextual character not only of the expression of knowledge, but also of its strategic use as a legitimizing device. Among the three political actors, Papademos was the one who made some linguistic choices different from the ones of Papandreou and Samaras. He particularly emphasized his high degree of objectivity as the source of knowledge. It was argued that these choices reflected the different political background of Papademos, which in turn was reflected in how Papademos constructed his context model on the basis of which he made the appropriate choices to represent himself as a credible source.

    6.2. Study’s contribution Study’s contribution to the analysis of Epistemic Stance in political discourse Even though the discourse-oriented approaches to evidentiality acknowledge the importance of context, as well as its parameters that indeed influence how evidential meaning is discursively realized, they largely tend to deal with them in abstract, descriptive terms. The main contribution of our study lies precisely on the following: seeing context as a subjective, unique mental construction the parameters of which are represented in context models that control discourse production and comprehension. We recognize them as the cognitive interface that mediates between the abstract and socially defined categories, on the one hand, and their discursive relation based on the subjective interpretations of those categories made by the speakers, on the other. At the same time it offers needed empirical feedback to the socio-cognitive approach to context.

    In particular, our study provides a hybrid framework for the analysis of an epistemic stance in Greek political discourse within the historical context of the Greek sovereign debt crisis. The analysis goes beyond the clause-level, which is the usual level of analysis of many studies on evidentiality. As far as we are aware, this is the first such approach of evidential meaning in Modern Greek, and one among very few within the relevant international literature on discourse-driven studies of evidentiality and the epistemic stance.

    Our main point is that unless the cognitive interface of the context model is taken into account, the complex process of the discursive construction of ES cannot be properly analyzed. It is indeed this context analytical perspective that led us to exclude from our analysis Mushin Imaginative EP since it appeared that the Greek political actors considered the linguistic resources that would realize the particular EP type. irrelevant to the communicative situations in which they were engaged.

    What is further implied from the above is the broad and open character of the inventory of the linguistic resource that the speakers have at their disposal for realizing the various ES types. As expected, in Modern Greek, a language lacking a distinct grammatical system for coding evidential meaning, lexical and syntactic resources are deployed for the expression of ES.

    Our analysis in Chapter 4 demonstrated that EP types can be realized by virtually all linguistic means, but, far from that, it can also be realized by more complex discursive structures, e.g. metaphors, allegories, narratives, Speech Acts (Questions, Assertions) and it can even be implied.

    This variety can only be explained by context models. For the purposes of our study, the political actors recall the old mental model which features how knowledge was acquired and, then, on the basis of the new model the construct for the current communication in which they participate, they interpret the various parameters of the context and they discursively realize that knowledge in a way that is considered appropriate. In accordance with the subjective interpretation of those contextual parameters, the political actors may or may not convey the same amount of knowledge or they may represent it as originated in different domains of evidence from the actual one etc. Respectively, spelling out the various contextual properties of each communicative situation is the only way to explain why political actors made the linguistic choices they made. As was shown in the study, all of their choices in order to accomplish pragmatic, cognitive and ideological goals were context-dependent – and this was quite evident in the genre of political interviews due to their interactional character.

    Never the less, there were also evident some re-occurring interpretations, applied nearly every time, in every communicative situation by all the political actors. This is also explained if we consider the function of context models. As discussed in chapter 2, context models may be personal, unique and constantly updated, but at the same time they are also pre-planned. Given the nature of the communicative situation or their own positioning within the political spectrum, the political actors seem to share to a great extent the same interpretations about how they should discursively perform their institutional role. It appeared that their main aim across the various contexts was to discursively construct themselves as reliable and authoritative sources. This was evident in cases in which they realized their ES types in a way that allowed them to inscribe personal responsibility for the knowledge they communicated and, accordingly, to foreground the subjective character of their representations, as well as in “opposite” cases of factual ES in which they political actors omitted the original source of their knowledge, and were designated as the only source of assumed Common Ground knowledge. It is plausible to say that the Greek political actors more than constructing representations that meet the shared criteria of their community, they are interested in constructing themselves as credible and authoritative sources, to bypass any epistemic safeguards of their audience solely by their own evidential standing. This is relevant for the analysis of the ES within the Greek context, as it indicates a shift from what is being said to who said it. We will return to this issue below.

    Just above, we indirectly referred to the issue of mismatches, which is a context-sensitive feature of the discursive realization of ES. What our study contributes to the relevant discussion is an explicit analysis of the context that controls the discursive realization of these mismatches. From a cognitive account, it was explained that mismatches are controlled by the interplay between the old and new context models constructed by the speakers, which has led us to revise the approach of Mushin, according to which speakers strategically exploit the epistemic mismatches shifting from a less reliable source to more reliable ones. This move was occurred in our data, but use of what we call reverse epistemic mismatch index the opposite shift: from reliable sources to less reliable.

    The reverse mismatches reveal the relative character of the reliability of information. Knowledge is not placed in a continuum of reliability on the basis of formal and abstract characteristics of the domain of evidence from which it was acquired; rather it subjected to the interpretations represented in the context models of the speaker. Our study showed that within the Greek political context, in general, and in the Greek political discourse, in particular, discursive-based evidence is the most reliable type of evidence -a view that contradicts traditional approaches of evidentiality. However, it should be noted that the positioning of the political actors with respect to the degree of reliability of this particular domain of evidence was not monolithic, but co-shaped by how other contextual parameters are interpreted. Respectively, it was shown in the study, that the same political actor may not hold the same evaluation of the reliability of a specific domain of evidence across all the communicative situations in which (s)he is engaged. This brings us to the third point derived from the examination of the reverse epistemic mismatches: the evaluation of the reliability of a domain of evidence is only one among the many interpretations made about the political on the basis of the context models they construct for every communicative situation. What is more, all of those interpretations are organized in a sense that some may be considered more relevant to the situation than others, and the political actors may accordingly make their choices. This explains why the political agent may have opted for reverse mismatch situations: the considered more appropriate to discursively construct a positive self-image through -typically less reliable - subjectified information, which though allowed them to appear as personally being in control of the crisis.

    Lastly, in relation with the study of ES in political settings the study demonstrated the importance and multifunctionality of discourse-based analysis, contrary to many studies in evidentiality which have overlooked not only the interactional and social characters of the specific domain of evidence, but also the fact that most of our knowledge is constructed, produced and comprehended through discourse. Undoubtedly, as politics are constituted in and through discourse, the domain of evidence being discussed has significant importance. With a context-based analytical perspective, our study offered a detailed framework of analysis about how the Greek political actors expressed and positioned themselves towards knowledge that was acquired through discourse showing that they not only exploited it in cases in which they attributed the responsibility of what is being said to a third, but it was also used as an effective means for constructing their own personal credibility.

    Study’s contribution to the analysis of Epistemic Legitimization Chapter 5 was dedicated to the analysis of epistemic legitimization in the Greek political discourse during the time of the sovereign debt crisis (2010-2012). Our analysis was conducted by applying two macro-distinctions: First, the proposed by Hart (2010) distinction between legitimization of assertions and legitimization of actions. Second, the proposed by Bednarek (2006a) distinction between attributes and averred utterances. Within the analytical framework developed in Chapter 4 for the analysis of various ES types that occurred in our data, our focus was to examine how political actors legitimized their assertions in relation with the implementation of austerity policies, which we see as a form of a social problem because a) they reflect the main neoliberal and capitalist positions as regards the organization and the structures of the State; and b) they establish and broaden inequality among the social groups. Given the above, the study specific contribution to the analysis of epistemic legitimization within the Greek political context can be summarized as follows.

    First, we demonstrated the importance of a detailed discursive micro-analysis when the ideological implications of discourse production are taken into consideration. Our analysis emphasized the specific linguistic choices made by three political actors (Papandreou, Papademos, Samaras) in three particular communicative situations, conceived as “vivid” instantiations of the social macro-level. In this respect, we detailed the various contextual parameters of each situation, paying attention to those features that make a political leader able to construct her/himself as a credible and authoritative source, a necessary move for the effective legitimization of assertions. We examined how the political actors discursively realized those features on the basis of their subjective context models that provide the cognitive interface that mediates society and discourse.

    Second, the distinction between legitimization of assertions and actions was followed for methodological reasons. It was shown, though, that they co-exist in discourse and are difficult to separate when an analysis moves beyond the clause level. Therefore, we not only examined how the various ES types contributed to the legitimization of assertions, but also (inevitably, but secondarily) how the linguistic resources used by the political actors to realize their own epistemic positioning also contributed to the legitimization of their actions. It was also shown that within the broader historical and political context of the European financial crisis they are used as common legitimization strategies across the various political settings.

    Third, the discourse as a domain of evidence gains in importance when it comes to legitimization of assertions. It appeared that the main aim of the political actors was not primarily to legitimize the propositional content of their assertions. Taking advantage of the status of their institutional role, they were seeking to legitimize themselves as sources of information (authorization) regardless of the degree of reliability of the domain of evidence from which they acquired the knowledge they communicate. Also, they strategically worked for the legitimization of third party discourses that they considered powerful.

    This brings us to the fourth point. It goes without saying that as legitimization is a dual process, the political actors equally aimed at the delegitimization of the discourse of their opponents. The political actors aimed at attenuating both the validity of the assertions made by their opponents as well as their opponents’ credibility as sources of information. In this respect, they activated two special kinds of the Us vs. Them strategy, What we say vs. What they say; and Who are we who say so vs. Who are they who say so.

    Fifth, the epistemic legitimization micro-strategy of objectification involves speaker’s standing back as (s)he lets the evidence speak for itself. Never the less, the Greek political actors even when they relied solely on the reliability of the knowledge that they communicate they have made tacitly a series of evaluation. First, the very evaluation of the reliability of the knowledge, as on the basis of their personal context models they discursively realized a type of ES indicating thus their own assessment about the information’s degree of reliability. Second, even in these cases in which they mitigated the domain of evidence and presented knowledge as raw fact, it was indexed that a tacit evaluation was made by the political actors, e.g. that they considered the communicative situation relevant, as well as their goals to mitigate the domain of evidence. Also, by communicating knowledge as a “fact”, i.e. commonly accepted, the political actors enhance their own credibility status.

    Sixth, taking into consideration the above three points, our study showed the context models construed by the political actors controlled the discourse production in a way that facilitated the construction of the speakers as credible sources. The political actors managed to gain epistemic control over the discourse as well as over their audience, and to bypass any epistemic safeguards of their recipients solely on the basis of their own evidential standing.

    Last, just as ES types were realized by a very broad directory of linguistic resources, the same held true for epistemic legitimization, which was efficiently operated both explicitly and implicitly by either “simple” or more complex discursive strategies and formulations.

    Study’s contribution to the analysis of evidential meaning in Modern Greek As stated, evidentiality in Modern Greek is mainly studied within a formal syntactic or pragmatic approach. Also, the studies on stance-taking in general and in epistemic stance in particular are little in number, so our view on the issue is not sufficient. The realization of ES types in political settings, there is, to as far as we know, as there is a total lack of detailed work dedicated to the subjects. Our work proposed a quite strict discourse-oriented framework of analysis -something which was never attempted before. However, the above by no means entail that the present study can function as blueprint for the systematic analysis of evidential meaning and epistemic stance in Modern Greek. It just opens a broad discussion and poses challenging questions the exploration of which may prove prolific.

    6.3. Issues for further research The present study just scratches the surface of the issue studied. We provided a detailed analysis of the discursive construction of evidential meaning, in general, and the epistemic stance, in particular, as it manifested in the governmental political discourse from 2010 to 2012. We also took into account the ideological and political implications of the discursive realization of various types of ES. However, there are still many issues related to our study that have been little studied and need elaboration.

    First, there is need for more studies on the evidentiality that will adopt a discourse-oriented approach, focusing their analysis beyond-clause levels. Especially for languages lacking a grammatical system for marking evidence, this seems to be inevitable in order for the phenomenon to be thoroughly analyzed.

    Second, an analytical context perspective must be adopted in studies dealing with the discursive expression of knowledge in order to have an overview of how speakers discursively construct their knowledge in different communicative situations. On the other hand, the socio-cognitive approach to discourse which offer such a theoretical framework should be informed by the empirical studies of the issue.

    Third, we still know very little about the cognitive structure of mental models. Our points about them were based on what has been observed in the authentic discourse, but an account provided by cognitive sciences and social psychology is needed.

    Fourth, a thorough account of how official knowledge was expressed by the pollical elites in the times of the Greek sovereign debt crisis should extent its limits over the specific period analyzed. What is more it should also include political discourses that have resisted that knowledge, focusing on how they constructed their “anti-knowledge” as well.

    Fifth, as the Greek Crisis triggered a series of events and actions that drastically transformed the Greek society’s structures; the social relationships among its groups and members and the allocation of wealth, any study of the Greek political discourse should take those social parameters into consideration.

    Sixth, our knowledge of how knowledge is constructed and negotiated among the hierarchical EU’s governing bodies is limited -if there is actually any. As we saw, much of the knowledge that the politicians communicated was knowledge hardly accessible by anyone, except for the political elites. Also, much of the sources (especially unofficial and official documents, reports, proceedings or simply the oral communication in official meetings) are not accessible. As a result of the European and international financial crisis and the neo-liberal austerity policies that were associated with it, a transition has emerged from identity politics and humanitarian campaigns dominated the 1990s and early 2000s to mass resistance in public spaces (Douzinas 2013; Martin-Rojo 2015), and it has marked so far the twenty-first century politics. Obviously, this is a broader question going far beyond the scientific and academic purposes. It is a political demand for democracy.

    References AGAMBEN, G. Means without end: Notes on politics. Mineapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

    AGAMBEN, G. State of Exception. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

    AHONEN, P. “‘The World Has Changed’: Discursive Struggles over an Industrial Shutdown in the Media, a Case from the Finnish Pulp and Paper Industry”. Competition & Change, 13, 3. London: Sage, 2009. Pages. 289-304.

    AIJMER, K. “I think–an English modal particle”. IN: SWAN, T.; WESTVIK, O.J. (eds.). Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997. Pages. 1-47.

    AIKHENVALD, A.Y. “Evidentiality in typological perspective”. IΝ: AIKHENVALD, A.Y.; DIXON, R.W. Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Pages. 1-31.

    AIKHENVALD, A.Y. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

    AIKHENVALD, A.Y.; DIXON, R.M.W. The Grammar of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

    ALVAREZ-CACCAMO, C.; PREGO-VASQUEZ, G. “Political cross-discourse: Conversationalization, imaginary networks, and social fields in Galiza”. Pragmatics, 13, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Pages.145–162.

    AMOSY, R. “Argumentation et Analyse du discours: perspectives théoriques et découpages disciplinaires. Argumentation et Analyse du discours” [online] selected paragraphs 1-18. IN: ANGERMULLER, J.; MAINGUENEAU, D.; WODAK, R. (eds.). The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014. Pages. 298-304 [Anonymous translator] ANDERSON, L.B. “Evidentials, Paths of Changes and Mental Maps: Typologically regular asymmetries”. IN: CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 1986. Pages. 271-312.

    ARCHAKIS, A.; TSAKONA, V. “Parliamentary discourse in newspaper articles: The interaction of a critical approach to media discourse into a literacy-based language teaching programme”. Journal of Language and Politics 8, 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pages. 359-385.

    ARCHAKIS, A.; TSAKONA, V. “‘The wolf wakes up inside them, grows werewolf hair and reveals all their bullying’: The representation of parliamentary discourse in Greek newspapers”. Journal of Pragmatics, 42. Oxford: Elsevier, 2010. Pages. 912-923.

    ARGITIS, G.; DAFERMOS, Y.; NIKOLAIDI, M. Sovereign Debt Crisis in Greece. Causes and Prospects. Reports 4. Athens: Observatory of Economic and Social Developments INE-GSSE, 2011. (in Greek) ARONSON, E. The Social Animal [9th ed.]. New York: Worth Publishers, 2003 AUERS, D.; KASEKAMP, A. “Comparing radical-right populism in Estonia and Latvia. IN: WODAK, R.; KHOSRAVINIK, M.; MRAL, B. (eds.). Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. Pages. 235-248. BABINIOTIS, G. Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας [Dictionary of Modern Greek]. Athens: Lexicography Centre, 20022.

    BAKAKOU-ORFANOU, E. “Orality and political discourse”. IN: MOZER, A., BAKAKOU-ORFANOU, E., CHARALABAKIS, C.; CHILA-MARKOPOULOU, D. (eds.). For language. Festschrift for Professor George Babiniotis by the Department of Linguistics. Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 2008. Pages. 389-401.

    BAMBERG, M. “Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities”. Human Development, 47, 6. Basel: Karger, 2004. Pages. 331-53.

    BAMBERG, M. “Stories: big or small? Why do we care?”. Narrative Inquiry, 16, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Pages.147-55.

    BAMBERG, M.; GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. “Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis”. Text and Talk, 28, 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. Pages. 377-396.

    BANK OF GREECE. Νομισματική Πολιτική 2012-2013 [Monetary Policy 2012-2013]. Athens: Bank of Greece, 2013. (in Greek) BARBE, K. Irony in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.

    BARRETT, L.F.; GROSS, J.J. “Emotion representation and regulation: A process model of emotional intelligence. Emotion: Current issues and future directions”. IN: MAYNE, T.; BONANNO, G.A. (eds.). Emotions: Current issues and future directions. New York: Guilford Press, 2001. Pages. 286-310.

    BARRO, R.J.; JONG-WHA, L. “IMF Programs: Who is Chosen and What are the Effects?” Journal of Monetary Economics, 52. Oxford: Elsevier, 2005. Pages. 1245-1269.

    BELLA, S. “Present tense and conception of the present”. IN: Department of Linguistics, UOA (eds.). Linguistic Circuit. Papers dedicated to Dimitra Theofanopoulou-Kontou. Athens: Kardamitsas, 2007. Pages. 257-266. (In Greek) BELLOFIORE, R. “Two or Three Things I Know about her”: Europe in the Global Crisis and Heterodox Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2013. Pages. 497-512.

    BEDNAREK, M. “Epistemological Positioning and Evidentiality in English News Discourses: a Text-Driven Approach”. Text and Talk, 26, 6. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. Pages. 635-660.

    BENVENISTE, E. Problems in general linguistics. S.l: University Of Miami Press, 1973.

    BERENT, M.K.; KROSNICK, J.A. “The Relation between Political Attitude Importance and Knowledge Structure”. IN: LODGE, M.; McGRAW, K.M. (eds.). Political Judgement. Strucure and Process. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1995. Pages. 91-110.

    BERNSTEIN, B. Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis, 2003.

    BERLIN, L.; PRIETO-MENDOZA, A. “Evidential Establishment in Political Debates during US Campaigns”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11, 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2014. Pages. 389-410.

    BETRUCCELLI-PAPI, M. Implicitness in Text and Discourse. Pisa: ETS, 2000.

    BIBER, D.; FINEGAN, E. “Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect”. Text-interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 9, 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1989. Pages.93-124.

    BIBER, D.; JOHANSSON, S.; LEECH, G.; CONRAD, S.; FINEGAN, E. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman, 1999.

    BIRNER, B. J. Introduction to pragmatics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

    BLAKEMORE, D. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.

    BOAS, F. “Kwakiutl”. IN: BOAS, F. (ed.). Handbook of American Indian languages. Part 1, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1911. Pages. 423-557.

    BOIN, A.R.; HART, P.; STERN, E.; SUNDELIUS, B. The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

    BOJE, D. “Organizational Storytelling: The Struggles of Pre-modern, Modern and Postmodern Organizational Learning Discourses”. Management Learning, 25, --. London: Sage,1994. Pages. 433-461.

    BONIKOWSKI, B.; GIRDON, N. “The Populist Style in American Politics: Presidential Campaign Discourse, 1952–1996”. Social Forces, 94. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2016. Pages. 1593–1621.

    BOSWELL, C. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Leiden: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

    BOUKALA, S. “Waiting for Democracy: Political Crisis and the Discursive (Re)Invention of the ‘National Enemy’ in Times of ‘Grecovery’”. Discourse and Society, 25, 4. London: Sage, 2014. Pages. 483-499.

    BOYE, K. Epistemic Meaning: A Crosslinguistic and Functional-Cognitive Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012.

    BOYE, K.; HARDER, P. “Evidentiality: Linguistics Categories and Grammaticalization”. Functions of Language 16, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pages. 9-43.

    BOYER, R. “The Four Fallacies of Contemporary Austerity Policies: The Lost Keynesian Legacy”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2012. Pages. 283-312.

    BRANDT, P.FA. “Evidentiality and enunciation. A cognitive and semiotic approach”. IN: MARRÍN-ARRESE, J.I. (ed.). Perspectives on evidentiality and modality. Madrid: Editorial Complutense, 2004. Pages. 3-10.

    BRIGGS, C. (ed.). Disorderly discourse: Narrative, conflict and inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    BROWN, D.R. “Evaluating institutional sustainability in development programmes: beyond dollars and cents”. Journal of International Development, 10, 1. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 1998. Pages. 55-69.

    BRUFF, I. Culture and consensus in European varieties of capitalism: a "common sense" analysis. Houndmills: Pelgrave-MacMillan, 2008.

    BUIRA, A. Challenges to the World Bank and IMF: Developing Country Perspectives. London: Anthem Press, 2003.

    BYBEE, J.L. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.

    BYRNE, R.M. “Mental models and counterfactual thoughts about what might have been”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 10. Oxford: Elsevier, 2002. Pages. 426-431.

    CALDAS-COULTHARD, C.R. “On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives”. IN: COULTHARD M. (ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, 1994. Pages. 295–308.

    CARRANZA, I. “Winning the battle in private discourse: rhetorical-logical operations in storytelling”. Discourse and Society, 10, 4. London: Sage, 1999. Pages. 509-541.

    CARVER, C. “Threat sensitivity, incentive sensitivity, and the experience of relief”. Journal of Personality, 77, 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Pages. 125-138.

    CAP, P. Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2006.

    CAP, P. “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 40. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008. Pages. 17–41.

    CAP, P. Proximization. The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013.

    CHAFE, W. “Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing”. IN: CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 1986. Pages. 261-272.

    CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 1986.

    CHARTERIS-BLACK, J. Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2011.

    CHILTON, P. Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge, 2004.

    CHILTON, P. “Discourse Space Theory: Geometry Brain and Shifting Viewpoints”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Pages. 78-116.

    CHILTON, P. “The language-ethics interface: reflections on linguistics, discourse analysis and the legacy of Habermas”. IN: CILLIA, R.; GRUBER, H.; KRYZANOWSKI, F.; MENZ, F. (eds.). Discourse-Politics-Identity. Vienna: Srauffenburg Verlag, 2010. Pages. 33-43.

    CHILTON, P. Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geography of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

    CHILTON, P.; EVANS, V. Language, Cognition and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. London: Equinox, 2009.

    CHILTON, P.; SCHÄFFNER, C. “Themes and Principals in the Analysis of Political Discourse”. IN: CHILTON, P.; SCHÄFFNER, C. (eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Pages. 1-41.

    CHOULIARAKI, L.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

    CLARK, H.H.; GERRIG, R.J. “On the Pretense Theory of Irony”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 1. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1984. Pages.121-126.

    CLAYMAN, S.; HERITAGE, J. The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    COLANDER, D.; GOLDBERG, M.; HAAS, A.; JUSELIUS, K.; KIRMAN, A.; LUX, T.; SLOTH, B. “The financial crisis and the failure of the economics profession”. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 21, 2. London: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Pages. 249-267.

    CONSTANTINESCU, M.-V. “Evidential and Epistemic Strategy in Romanian Parliamentary Debates”. Language and Dialogue, 4, 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2014. Pages. 132-148.

    CONWAY, P. “IMF Lending Programs: Participation and Impact”. Journal of Development Economics, 45. Oxford: Elsevier, 1994. Pages. 365-391.

    CORNILLIE, B. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality”. Functions of Language, 16, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pages. 44-62.

    CORNILLIE, B.; MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I.; WIEMER, B. “Evidentiality and the semantics-pragmatics interface”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 1 Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2015. Pages. 1-18.

    COSMIDES, L.; TOOBY, J. “Evolutionary psychology and the emotions”. IN: LEWIS, M.; HAVILAND-JONES, J.M.; SLOAN, D.M.; FRESCO, D.M. (eds.). Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford Press, 2000. Pages. 91-115.

    CROFT, W.; CRUSE, D. A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

    CZARNIAWSKA-JOERGES, B. “Narration or science? Collapsing the division in organization studies”. Organization, 2, 1. London: Sage, 1995. Pages. 11-33.

    DAFERMOS, Y.; NIKOLAIDI, M. “Οι μακροοικονομικές παραδοχές του προγράμματος δημοσιονομικής λιτότητας στην Ελλάδα: Πόσο ρεαλιστικές είναι; [The Macroeconomics Assumptions of Fiscal Austerity Programme in Greece: How Realistic are They?]”. Policy Briefs, 2. Athens: Observatory of Economic and Social Developments INE-GSSE, 2011. Pages. 1-8.

    DAMASIO, AR. Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam, 1994.

    DANCYGIER, B.; SWEETSER, E. “Conditionals, distancing, and alternative spaces”. IN: GOLDBERG, A. (ed.). Conceptual structure, discourse, and language. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 1996. Pages. 83–98.

    DANCYGIER, B.; SWEETSER, E. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

    DAVOU, B.; DEMERTZIS, N. “Feeling the Greek financial crisis”. IN: DEMERTZIS, N. (ed.). Emotions in politics. The Affect Dimension in Political Tension. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2013. Pages. 93-123.

    DE FINA, A. “Orientation in immigrant narratives: the role of ethnicity in the identification of characters”. Discourse Studies 2, 2. London: Sage, 2000. Pages. 131-57.

    DE FINA, A.; GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. Analyzing narrative: discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

    DEHANN, F. “Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries”. Text and Talk, 26, 6. Mouton: De Gruyter, 1999. Pages. 635-660.

    DELANCEY, S. “The Mirative and Evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 3. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2001. Pages. 369–382.

    DELVEROUDI, R.; TSAMADOU, I.; VASSILAKI, S. “Mood and Modality in Modern Greek: The particle na”. IN: PHILIPPAKI-WARBURTON, I.; NICOLAIDIS, K.; SIFIANOU, M. (eds.). Themes in Greek Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1994. Pages. 185-192.

    DEMERTZIS, N.; DAVOU B.; VERNARDAKIS, C. “A Pilot Study of the Indignati”. Report #28. Athens: Laboratory for Psychological Applications and Communication Planning, Faculty of Communication & Media Studies, University of Athens, 2011.

    DENDALE, P.; TASMOWSKI, L. “Introduction: Evidentiality and Related Notions”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001. Pages. 339-348.

    DEPPERMANN, A. “The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics”. Human Studies, 34, 2. Heidelberg: Springer. Pages.115-128 DOUZINAS, C. Philosophy and Resistance in the Crisis: Greece and the Future of Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013.

    DREW, P. “Asymmetries of knowledge in conversational interactions .” IN: MARKOVÁ, I.; FOPPA, K. (eds.) Asymmetries in Dialogue. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991. Pages. 29-48.

    DU BOIS, J.W. “Self-Evidence and Ritual Speech.” IN: CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. Pages. 313-36.

    DU BOIS, J.W. “The stance triangle”. IN: ENGLEBRETSON, R (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Page. 139-182.

    DUNMIRE, P.L. “’Emerging threats’ and ‘coming dangers’”. IN: HODGES, A.; NILEP, C. (eds.). Discourse, war and terrorism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Pages. 19-43.

    DUNMIRE, P.L. “The rhetoric of temporality and the temporality of rhetoric: The future as linguistic construct and rhetorical resource”. In: JOHNSTONE, B. and EISENHART C. (eds.). Rhetoric in Detail. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Pages. 81–113.

    DUNMIRE, P.L. Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the bush doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011.

    EDELMAN, M.J. The symbolic uses of politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967.

    EDELMAN, M.J. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. Chicago: Markham, 1971.

    EDELMAN, M.J. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

    EDWARDS, D. “Script formulations: An analysis of event descriptions in conversation”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13, 3. London: Sage, 1994. Pages. 211-247.

    EKSTRÖM, M. “Politicians Interviewed on Television News”. Discourse & Society, 12, 5. London: Sage, 2001. Pages: 563-584.

    ELCHEROTH, G.; DOISE, W.; REICHER, S. “On the Knowledge of Politics and the Politics of Knowledge: How Social Representations Approach Helps Us Rethink the Subject of Political Psychology”. Political Psychology, 32, 5. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Pages. 729-758.

    ENFIELD, N. “Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: enchrony, status, knowledge and agency”. IN: STIVERS, T.; MONDADA, L.; STEENSIG, J. (eds.). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pages. 285-312.

    ENGLEBRETSON, R. “Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction”. IN: ENGLEBRETSON, R. (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Pages. 1-26.

    EPSTUDE, K.; ROESE, N.J. “The functional theory of counterfactual thinking”. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 2. London: Sage, 2008. Pages. 168-192.

    ERREYGERS, G.; JACOBS, G. Language, Communication and the Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006.

    EUDERNIK, M. Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge, 1996.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Media discourse. London: Sage 1995.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. “Discourse, social theory, and social research: The discourse of welfare reform”. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2000. Pages. 163-195.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Analyzing Discourse: Text Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge, 2003.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Language and Globalization. London: Routledge, 2006.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. “A Dialectical-Relational Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis in Social Research”. IN: WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 20092. Pages. 162-187.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Language and Power. [second edition] London, New York: Longman, 20102 .

    FAIRCLOUGH, N. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language London: Longman, 20102.

    FAIRCLOUGH, I.; FAIRCLOUGH, N. Political Discourse Analysis. A method for advanced students. London: Routledge, 2012.

    FAIRCLOUGH, N.; WODAK, R. “Critical Discourse Analysis”. IN: VAN DIJK, T.A. (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Vol. II). London: Sage, 1997. Pages. 258-284.

    FAUCONNIER, G. “Analogical counterfactuals”. IN: FAUCONNIER, G.; SWEETSER, E. (eds.). Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Pages. 57-90.

    FAUCONNIER, G. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

    FETZER, A. “’And I Think that this is very Straightforward Way of Dealing with it’ The Communicative Function of Cognitive Verbs in Discourse”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27,4. London: Sage, 2008. Pages. 384-396.

    FETZER, A. “I Think, I Mean and I Believe in Political Discourses: Collocates, Functions and Distribution”. Functions of Language, 21, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014. Pages. 67-91.

    FETZER, A.; OISHI, E. “Evidentiality in Discourse”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11, 3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2014. Pages. 321-332.

    FIGUERAS-BATES, C.; CABEDO-NEBOT, A. (eds.). Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish: Explorations across genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2018.

    FINEGAN, E. “Subjectivity and subjectivisation: an introduction”. IN: STEIN, D.; WRIGHT, S. (eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pages. 1-15.

    FONSECA, P.; FERREIRA, M. J. “Through ‘seas never before sailed’: Portuguese government discursive legitimation strategies in a context of financial crisis”. Discourse & Society, 26, 6. London: Sage, 2015. Pages. 682-711.

    FOUCAULT, M. “Politics and the Study of Discourse”. Ideology and Consciousness, 3. 1978. Pages. 7-26.

    FOUCAULT, M. “Governmentality”. Ideology and Consciousness, 6. 1979. Pages. 5-21 FOUCAULT, M. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980.

    FOUCAULT, M. Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

    FOWLER R. “Power”. IN: VAN DIJK, T.A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Volume 4: Discourse Analysis in Society. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1985. Pages. 61-82.

    FOWLER R. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge, 1991.

    FOX, B.A. “Evidentiality: Authority, Responsibility, and Entitlement in English Conversation”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11, 2. Arlington, VA: The American Anthropological Association, 2001. Pages. 167-192.

    FRANTZI, K.T.; GEORGALIDOU, M. “Conversational Strategies in Written Political Discourse: A Corpus Linguistics Approach.” Paper presented at the 10th International Pragmatics Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8–13 July, 2007.

    FRIEDMAN, V.A. “Balkans as a Linguistic Area”. IN: BROWN, K. (ed. in chief). Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. Pages. 657-672. GARNER, R.; FERDINAND, P.; LAWSON, S. Introduction to Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

    GELISSEN, J. Worlds of welfare, worlds of consent?: public opinion on the welfare state. Leiden Boston: Brill, 2002.

    GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. “’Same old story?’ On the interactional dynamics of shared narratives”. IN: QUASTHOFF, U. M.; BECKER, I. (eds.) Narrative interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005a. Pages. 223-241.

    GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. “Styling men and masculinities: interactional and identity aspects at work”. Language in Society, 34, 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005b. Pages. 163-184.

    GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. Small stories, interaction and identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.

    GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. “Building iterativity into positioning analysis: A practice-based approach to small stories and self”. Narrative Inquiry, 23, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013. Pages. 89-110.

    GEORGAKOPOULOU, A. “Small stories transposition and social media: A micro-perspective on the ‘Greek crisis’”. Discourse & Society, 25, 4. London: Sage, 2014. Pages. 519-539.

    GEORGALOU, M. “’It’s very awful and none of us had expected it’: Greek crisis and stance-taking on Facebook”. IN: Proceedings of the 7th Athens Postgraduate Conference of the Faculty of Philology, Athens, 16-18/5/2013. Athens: University of Athens, 2014. Pages. 141-150.

    GEORGALOU, M. “Taking stances on the Greek crisis on Facebook”. IN: HATZIDAKI, O. and GOUTSOS D. (eds.). Greece in Crisis. Combining critical discourse and corpus linguistics perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pages. 223-261.

    GEORGIADOU, V.; KAFE, A.; PIERIDES, C. (2012). “Anti-Party, Anti-Parliamentary or Anti-Democratic Social Movements? The ‘Outraged’ Citizens of Greece”. Paper presented to the IPSA Annual Conference, July 2012, Madrid.

    GIANNAKIDOU, A. 2011. “Modality, Nonveridicality, and the present: the semantics of na and tha”. Plenary paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Komotini, September 2011.

    GIANNAKIDOU, A.; MARI, A. “Italian and Greek futures as epistemic evidential operators”. Manuscript, University of Chicago and IJN, 2012. Pages. 254-270.

    GIVÓN, T. Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.

    GOATLY, A. Washing the brain metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.

    GONZALEZ-CONDOM, M. “From truth-attesting to intensification: The grammaticalization of Spanish La verdad and Catalan La veritat”. Discourse Studies 2015, 17, 2. London: Sage, 2015. Pages. 162-181.

    GONZALES-CONDOM, M. “No sé: epistemic stance, evidential grounding and scope in unplanned oral genres”. IN: FIGUERAS-BATES, C.; CABEDO-NEBOT, A. (eds.). Perspectives on Evidentiality in Spanish: Explorations across genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins; 2018. Pages. 147-172.

    GOODMAN, N. “The problem of counterfactual conditionals”. Journal of Philosophy, 44, 5. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947 Pages. 113-128.

    GOUTSOS, D.; POLYMENEAS, G. “Identity as space: Localism in Greek Protests”. Journal of Language and Politics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014.

    GRICE, P.H. “Logic and Conversation”. IN: COLE, P.; MORGAN, J. L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantucs, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 1975. Pages. 41-58.

    GRUNDY, P. Doing Pragmatics. London: Arnold, 20002.

    HALL, P.A.; SOSKICE, W.D. (eds.). Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford England New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

    HALLIDAY, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.

    HALLIDAY, M.A.K.; HASAN, R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1986.

    HANKS, W.F. “Evidentiality in social interaction”. Pragmatics and Society 3, 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. Pages. 169-180.

    HART, C. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science. New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2010.

    HART, C. “Legitimizing Assertions and the Logico-Rhetorical Module: Evidence and Epistemic Vigilance in Media Discourse on Immigration”. Discourse Studies, 14, 1. London: Sage, 2011. Pages. 751-769.

    HART, C. Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

    HASSLER, G. “Evidentiality and the expression of speaker’s stance in Romance languages and German”. Discourse Studies, 17,2. London: Sage, 2015. Pages. 182-209.

    HATZIDAKI, O. “The ‘theory of the two extremes’”. IN: HATZIDAKI, O.; GOUTSOS, D. (eds.). Greece in Crisis: Combining critical discourse and corpus linguistics perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017, Pages. 151–190.

    HATZIDAKI, O.; GOUTSOS, D. “The discourses of the Greek Crisis”. IN: HATZIDAKI, O.; GOUTSOS, D. (eds.). Greece in Crisis: Combining critical discourse and corpus linguistics perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017, Pages. 3-42.

    HAY, C. “Narrating Crisis: The Discursive Construction of the ‘Winter of Discontent’”. Sociology, 30,2. London: Sage, 1996. Pages. 253-277.

    HAY, C. Why we hate politics. Cambridge Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2007.

    HEMERIJCK, A.; VISSER, J. “The Dutch model: an obvious candidate for the ‘third way’?” European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 42,1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pages: 221-239.

    HERITAGE, J.; GREATBATCH, D. “On the Institutional Character of Institutional Talk: The Case of News Interviews”. IN: BODEN, D.; ZIMMERMAN, D.H. (eds.). Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991 Pages. 93-137.

    HERITAGE, J.; RAYMOND, G. “The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction”. Social psychology quarterly, 68, 1. London: Sage, 2005. Pages. 15-38.

    HIGGINS, M. “Populism and security in political speechmaking: the 2008 US presidential campaign”. IN: MARSDEN, L.; SAVIGNY, H. (eds.). Media, Religion and Conflict, Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2009. Pages. 153–68.

    HILL, J.H.; IRVINE, J.T. (eds.). Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

    HILTON, D.; McCLURE, J.L.; SLUGOSKI, B.R. “The course of events: counterfactuals, causal sequences, and explanation”. IN: Mandel, D.R.; HILTON, D.J.; CATELLANI, P. (eds.). The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. London. Routledge, 2005. Pages. 44-60.

    HOGEWEG, L. “What's so unreal about the past: past tense and counterfactuals”. IN: Tsangalidis, A.; Facchinetti, R. (eds.). Studies on English Modality in honour of Frank R. Palmer. Bern: Peter Lang, 2009. Pages. 181-208.

    HOLMES, J. “Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech”. Language & Communication, 10, 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 1990. Pages.185-205.

    HOOD, C. The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.

    HUNSTON, S. “Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts”. IN: HUNSTON, S.; THOMPSON, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pages. 176-207.

    IATRIDOU, S. “The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality”. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 2. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000. Pages. 231-270.

    IEŢCU-FAIRCLOUGH, I. “Strategic maneuvering in the political field”. IN: VAN EEMEREN, F.H. (ed.). Examoning Argumentation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pages. 131-151.

    IFANTIDOU, E. Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001.

    IHNEN, C.; RICHARDSON, J.E “On combining pragma-dialectics with Critical Discourse Analysisa’. IN: FERETIS, E.; GARSEN, B.; SNOECK-HENKEMANS F. (eds.). Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. Pages. 231-243.

    IMF. “Theoretical Aspects of the Design of Fund-supported Adjustment Programmes”. IMF Occasional Paper, 55. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 1987.

    IMF. World Economic Outlook 2009. IMF, 2009.

    INE GSEE/ADEDI. Η ελληνική οικονομία και η απασχόληση [The Greek economy and the employment.] Annual Review 2012. Athens: INE GSEE, 2012.

    INE GSEE. Η ελληνική οικονομία και η απασχόληση [The Greek economy and the employment.] Annual Review 2013. Athens: INE GSEE, 2013.

    Institute of Modern Greek Studies. 1998. Λεξικό της Κοινής Νέας Ελληνικής [Dictionary of Modern Greek Koine]. Online version. (date of last access: 15/2/15).

    IONESCU-ROXANDOIU, L. “Strategic Uses of Certainty and Uncertainty in Political Debate.” Language and Dialogue, 4,1. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2014. Pages. 149-162.

    JACOBSEN, W.H. Jr. “The heterogeneity of evidentials in Makah”. IN: CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. (eds.). Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemology, 3-28. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. Pages. 3-28.

    JAGERS, J.; WALGRAVE, S. “Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties' discourse in Belgium”. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 3. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Pages. 319-345.

    JÄGER, S.; MAIER, F. “Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis”. IN: WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 20092. Pages. 34-62.

    JAKOBSON, R. “Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb”. Harvard University: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, 1957. (Reprinted in: Jacobson, Roman, 1971. Selected writings, vol. II, 130-147. The Hague: Mouton.) JANSEN, R. “Greece and the IMF: Who Exactly is Being Saved?”. Washington D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2010.

    JESSOP, B. The Future of the Capitalist State, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002.

    JING-SCHMIDT, Z. “What are they good for? A constructionist account of counterfactuals in ordinary Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 113. Oxford: Elsevier, 2017. Pages. 30-52.

    JONES, J.; WAREING, S. “Language and politics”. IN: THOMAS, L.; WAREING, S. (eds.). Language, Society and Power. An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1999. Pages. 31–47.

    JOSEPH, B.D. “Evidentials: Summation, Questions, Prospects”. IN: AIKHENVALD, A.; DIXON, R.M.W. (eds.). Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Pages. 307-327.

    JOSEPH, B. D.; PHILIPPAKI-WARBURTON, I. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm, 1987.

    JOVCHELOVITCH, S. Knowledge in context. Representations, community and culture. London: Routledge, 2007.

    JÜRG, S.; BÄCHTIGER, A.; SPÖRNDLI, M.; STEENBERGEN, R. M. Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

    KAHNEMAN, D.; MILLER, D. T. “Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives”. Psychological review, 93, 2. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1986. Pages. 136-153.

    KINDLEBERGER, C.P.; ALIBER, R. Z. Manias, Panics and Crashes. A History of Financial Crises. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2005.

    KING, L.; KITSON, M.; KONZELMANN, S.; WILKINSON, F. “Making the Same Mistake Again – or is This Time Different”. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36. Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2012. Pages. 1-15.

    KOLLER, V.; SEMINO, E. “Metaphor, politics and gender: a case study from Germany”. IN: AHRENS, K. (ed.). Politics, gender and conceptual metaphors. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009. Pages. 9-35.

    KOSTIKAS-TSELEPIS, P. “Ways of expressing evidentiality in Modern Greek” [In Greek]. IN: Studies in Greek Linguistics 24 (Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of AUTH’s Department of Linguistics, School of Philosophy) Thessaloniki, 9-19/5/2003. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Pages. 357-368 KRZYŻANOWSKI, M.; WODAK, R. “Theorising and analysing social change in Central and Eastern Europe: The contribution of critical discourse analysis”. IN: GALASIŃSKA, A.; KRZYŻANOWSKI, M. (eds.). Discourse and transformation in Central and Eastern Europe. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2009. Pages. 17-39.

    LABOV, W. “The transformation of experience in narrative syntax”. IN: LABOV, W. (ed.). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Pages. 354-396.

    LAKOFF, G.; JOHNSON, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

    LAMBRECHT, K. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

    LANGACKER, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987.

    LANGACKER, R.W. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

    LANGACKER, R.W. Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 2009.

    LANGACKER, R.W. “Modals: Striving for Control.” IN: MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I.; CARRETERO M.; HITA, J.A.; VAN DER AUWERA J. (eds.). English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin De Gruyter Mouton, 2013b, Pages. 3-55.

    LANGACKER, R.W. “Evidentiality in cognitive grammar”. IN: ARRESE, J.I.; HASSLER, G.; CARRETERO, M. Evidentiality revisited: cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pages. 13-56.

    LAZARD, G. “On the grammaticalization of evidentiality”. Journal of pragmatics, 33,3. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001. Pages: 359-367.

    LEHRER, K. Theory of knowledge. London: Routledge, 1990.

    LEIJONHUFVUD, A. Macroeconomic Instability and Coordination: Selected Essays. Cheltenham: Edward Edgar, 2000.

    LEWIS, D. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

    LYKOY, C.; MITSIKOPOULOU, B. “The chronicle of an ongoing crisis: Diachronic media representations of Greece and Europe in the Greek press”. IN: HATZIDAKI, O.; GOUTSOS, D. (eds.). Greece in Crisis: Combining critical discourse and corpus linguistics perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pages. 113-150.

    MACAULAY, R.K.S. “The adverbs of authority”. English World-Wide, 16, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995. Pages. 37-60.

    MANDEL, D. “Counterfactuals, emotions, and context”. Cognition and emotion, 17, 1. London: Taylor & Francis, 2003. Pages.139-159.

    MANDEL, D.R.; HILTON, D.J.; CATELLANI, P. (eds.). The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. London: Routledge, 2005.

    MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I. “Effective vs. Epistemic Stance and Subjectivity in Political Discourse: Legitimising Strategies and Mystification of Responsibility”. IΝ: HART C. (ed.) Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011a. Pages. 193-223.

    MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I. “Epistemic legitimizing strategies, commitment and accountability in discourse. Discourse and Studies, 17, 6. London: Sage, 2011b. Pages. 789-797.

    MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I. “Stancetaking and Inter/subjectivity in the Iraq Inquiry: Blair vs. Brown”. IN: MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I.; CARRETERO, M.; HITA, J.A.; VAN DER AUWERA, J. (eds.). English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Mounton: De Gruyter 2013. Pages. 411-446.

    MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I. “Epistemic Legitimisation and Inter/Subjectivity in the Discourse of Parliamentery and Public Inquiries: A constarstive case study”. Critical Discourse Studies, 12, 3. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis, 2015a. Pages. 261-278.

    MARÍN-ARRESE, J.I. “Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish”. Discourse Studies, 17, 2. London: Sage, 2015b. Pages. 210-225.

    MARTINEZ-GUILLEM, S. “Argumentation, Meta-Discourse and Social Cognition: Organizing Knowledge in Political Communication”. Discourse and Society, 20, 6. London: Sage, 2009. Pages. 727-746.

    MATLOCK, T. “Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials”. IN: Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Electronic Publication, 1989. Pages. 215-225.(https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1751, date of last access, 15/6/18) MAYER, R. "Abstraction, context, and perspectivization – evidentials in discourse semantics". Theoretical Linguistics, 16, 2-3. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 2009. Pages. 101-164 MICHALOPOULOU, S. 2012. “Αναπτυξιακές και Κοινωνικές Επιπτώσεις των Πολιτικών Σταθερότητας του ΔΝΤ [Developmental and Social Fallouts of the IMF’s Stability Policies]”. Studies 21. Athens: Observatory of Economic and Social Developments INE-GSSE, 2012. Pages. 1-72.

    MINK, M.; DE HAAN, J. “Contagion during the Greek Sovereign Debt Crisis”. Journal of International Money and Finance, 34. Oxford: Elsevier, 2013. Pages. 102-113.

    MINSKY, H.P. Stabilizing Unstable Economy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

    MINSKY, M. The society of mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986.

    MISZTAL, B. A. Trust in modern societies: the search for the bases of social order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.

    MITHUN, M. “Evidential Diachrony in Northern Iroquonian.”. IN: CHAFE, W.; NICHOLS, J. (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood: Ablex, 1986. Pages. 89-112.

    MOIR, J. “The language of political opinion”. IN: OKULSKA, U.; CAP, P. (eds.). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. Pages. 237-254.

    MOLEK-KOZAKOWSKA, K. “Labeling and mislabeling in American political discourse”. IN: OKULSKA, U.; CAP, P. (eds.). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. Pages. 83-96.

    MOSCOVICI, S. “Social representations and pragmatic communication.” Social Science Information, 33, 2. London: Sage, 1994. Pages. 163-177.

    MOSCOVICI, S. Psychoanalysis: Its image and its public. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008.

    MOSES, Y. “Reasoning about knowledge and belief”. IN: VAN HARMELEN, F.; LIFSCHITZ, V.; PORTER, B. (eds.). Handbook of knowledge representation. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008. Pages. 621-648.

    MUSGRAVE, A. Common sense, science and scepticism: A historical introduction to the theory of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

    MUSHIN, I. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001.

    MUSHIN, I. “Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality”. Discourse studies, 15, 5. London: Sage, 2013. Pages. 627-645.

    MUSOLFF, A. Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

    NARROG, H. “On defining modality again”. Language Sciences, 27, 2. Oxford: Elsevier. 2005. Pages.165-192.

    NARROG, H. “Modality, mood and change of modal meanings: A new perspective” Cognitive Linguistics, 16. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005. Pages. 677–731.

    NORRICK, N. Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000.

    NOWZAD, B. “The IMF and its Critics”. Essays in International Finance, 146. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

    NUCKOLLS, J.; LEV M. (eds.). Evidentiality in interaction. Special issue of Pragmatics and Society, 3, 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2012.

    NUYTS, J. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001a.

    NUYTS, J. “Subjectivity as Evidential Dimension in Epistemic Modal Expressions”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001b. Pages. 383-400.

    NUYTS, J. “Notions of (Inter)subjectivity”. English Text Construction, 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. Pages. 53–76.

    NUYTS, J. “Evidentiality reconsidered”. IN: ARRESE, J.I.; HASSLER, G.; CARRETERO, M. Evidentiality revisited: cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pages. 57-86.

    OCHS, E.; CAPPS, L. Living narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

    O' KEEFE, D.J. Persuasion: Theory and research. London: Sage, 2002.

    OKULSKA, U.; CAP, P. “Analysis of Political Discourse. Landmarks, challenges and prospects”. IN: OKULSKA, U.; CAP, P. (eds.). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. Pages. 3-10.

    PALMER, F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

    PALMER, F.R. Mood and modality. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

    PAPADIMITRIOU, D.; MICHALIS, N.; ZEZZA, G. “Οικονομική κρίση και πολιτικές λιτότητας στην Ελλάδα: Ποιες είναι οι προοπτικές; [Economic crisis and austerity policies in Greece: Which are the prospects?]”. Policy Briefs, 6. Athens: Observatory of Economic and Social Developments INE-GSSE, 2013. Pages. 1-8.

    PAPAFRAGOU, A.; LI, P.; YOUNG, C.; CHUNG-HYE, H. “Evidentiality in Language and Cognition”. Cognition, 103. Oxford: Elsevier, 2007. Pages. 253-299.

    PEET, R. The Unholy Trinity: The IMF, World Bank and WTO. London-New York: Zed Books, 2009.

    PETRAKIS, P. The Greek Economy and the Crisis. Challenges and Responses. Heidelberg: Springer, 2011.

    PIETRANDREA, P.; STATHI, K. “What counts as an evidential unit? The case of evidential complex constructions in Italian and Modern Greek”. STUF-Language Typology and Universals Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 63, 4. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2010. Pages.333-344.

    PLUNGIAN, V.A. “The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 2001. Pages. 349–357.

    POLITIS, P.; KAKAVOULIA, M. “Direct discourse in the Greek press: from evidentiality to subjectivity”. Revista alicantina de estudios ingleses, 19. Alicante: English Department of the University of Alicante, 2006. Pages: 345-363.

    POLYMENEAS, G. “‘Greek December’ in Political and Media Discourse: Analysing the PM’s addresses and newspapers reports”. IN: FRAGKAKI, G.; GEORGAKOPOULOS, T.; GEORGAKOPOULOS, C. (eds.), Current Trends in Greek Linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012. Pages. 197-219.

    POLYMENEAS, G. “Today I know, we know, that these sacrifices are heavy, but necessary”. IN: HATZIDAKI, O.; GOUTSOS, D. (eds.). Greece in Crisis: Combining critical discourse and corpus linguistics perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. Pages. 83-109.

    POTAMIANOS, A.G.; GKITAKOS, V.; AVRAMIDOU, E. (eds.). The experience of unemployment. The people behind the numbers. [In Greek]. Athens: Papazisis, 2015.

    RADAELI, C.M. “The role of knowledge in the policy process”. Journal of European Public Policy, 2, 2. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 1995. Pages. 159-183.

    RAYMOND, G.; HERITAGE, J. “The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren”. Language in society, 35, 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pages. 677-705.

    REBER, E. “Constructing Evidence at PM’s Question Time: An Analysis of the Grammar, Semantics and Pragmatics of the Verb See”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11,3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2014. 357-388.

    REINHART, C.M.; ROGOFF, S.K. “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises”. NBER Working Paper, 13882, March 2008. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008.

    REINHART, C.M.; ROGOFF, S.K. This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.

    REINHART, C.M.; ROGOFF, S.K. “From Financial Crash to Debt Crisis”. Working paper 15795, National Bureau of Economic Research. 2010a.

    REINHART, C.M.; ROGOFF, S.K. “Growth in a Time of Debt”. American Economic Review, 100,2. Nashville, TE: American Economic Association, 2010b. Pages. 573-578.

    REINHART, C.M.; REINHART, V.R.; ROGOFF, S. K. “Public Debt Overhangs: Advanced-Economy Episodes Since 1800”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26,3. Nashville, TE: American Economic Association, 2012. Pages. 69-86.

    REISIGL, M. “Analyzing political rhetoric. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences”. IN: WODAK, R.; KRZYŻANOWSKI, M. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008. Pages. 96-120.

    REISIGL, M.; WODAK, R. “The discourse-historical approach (DHA)”. IN: WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 20092. Pages. 87-122.

    REYES, A. “Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions”. Discourse & Society, 22, 6. London: Sage, 2011. Pages. 781-807.

    RIESMANN, C.K. “A short story about long stories. Oral versions of personal experience: three decades of narrative analysis”. IN: BAMBERG, M. (ed.). Special issue of Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 1-4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pages. 155-158.

    RODRIK, D. “After Neoliberalism What?” Paper presented at the BNDES seminar on “New Paths of Development”, Rio, September 11-13, 2002.

    ROESE, N.J. “Counterfactual thinking”. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997. Pages. 133-148.

    ROESE, N.J. “Counterfactual thinking and decision making”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 1999. Pages. 570-578.

    ROESE, N.J.; OLSON, J. M. What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995.

    ROESE, N.J.; OLSON, J.M. “Counterfactuals, causal attributions and the hindsight bias: a conceptual integration”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 1996. Pages. 197--227.

    ROJO, L.M. (ed.). Occupy: The spatial dynamics of discourse in global protest movements. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2016.

    ROJO, L.M.; VAN DIJK, T.A. “There was a Problem, and it was Solved!”: Legitimating the Expulsion of illegal 'Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse”. Discourse & Society, 8, 4. London: Sage, 1997. Pages. 523-566.

    RUZZA, C.; BALBO, L. “Italian populism and the trajectory of two leaders: Silvio Berlusconi and Umberto Bossi”. IN: WODAK, R.; KHOSRAVINIK, M.; MRAL, B. (eds.). Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Publishers, 2013. Pages. 163-175.

    SACKS, H. “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology”. IN: SUDNOW, D.N. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: The Free Press, 1972. Pages. 31-74.

    SAEED, J.I..Semantics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003.

    SAPIR, E. Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co, 1921.

    SBISÀ, M. “Ideology and the Persuasive Use of Presupposition”. IN: VERSCHUEREN, J. (ed.). Language and Ideology: Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1999. Pages. 492–509.

    SCHIFFRIN, D. “The management of a cooperative self during argument: the role of opinions and stories”. IN: GRIMSHAW, A.D. (ed.). Conflict talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pages. 241-259.

    SCHÖN, D.A. “Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy”. IN: ORTONY, A. (ed.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Pages. 254-283.

    SCOTT, M.; LYMAN, S. “Accounts”. American Sociological Review, 33, 1. Los Angeles: Sage, 1986. Pages. 46-62.

    SENFT, Gunter. Understanding pragmatics. Milton Park: Routledge, 2014.

    SETATOS, M. “Argumentative uses of pragmatic particles in Standard Modern Greek”. [In Greek]. IN: M. Setatos, Linguistic Studies. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1994a. Pages. 127-146.

    SETATOS, M. “Argumentative uses of lego”. [in Greek]. IN: SETATOS, M. Linguistic Studies. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 1994b. Pages. 147-166.

    SIDNELL, J. Conversation analysis: an introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

    SIDNELL, J. “Who Knows the Best? Evidentiality and Epistemic Asymmetry in Conversation.” Pragmatics and Society, 3, 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. Pages. 294-320.

    SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A-M. “Modal (Un)Certianty in Political Discourse. A Functional Account.” Language Sciences, 19, 4. Oxford: Elsevier, 1997. Pages. 341-356.

    SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A-M. “The Function of I Think in Political Discourse.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 1. Chistesher: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. Pages. 41-63.

    SIMON-VANDENBERGEN, A-M.; WHITE, P.R.R.; AIJMER, K. 2007. “Presupposition and ‘Taken-for-Granted’ in Mass Communicated Political Argument”. IN: FETZER, A.; LAUERBACH, E. (eds.). Political Discourse in the Media. Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pages. 31-76.

    SINCLAIR, J.M. “Mirror for a text”. Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 1. London: Taylor & Francis, 1988. Pages.15–44.

    SINN, H-W. Rescuing Europe. CESIFO Forum, Special Issue, vol. 11. 2010.

    SOTIRIS, P “Days of Unrest and Hope”’, Greek Left Review. Available at: http://greekleftreview.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/days-of-unrest-and-hope/#more-1049. 2011.

    SQUARTINI, M. “The internal structure of evidentiality in Romance.” Studies in Language, 25, 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Pages. 297-334.

    SQUARTINI, M. "Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian" Linguistics, 46, 5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008. Pages. 917-947.

    SQUARTINI, M. “Evidentiality in interaction: The concessive use of the Italian Future between grammar and discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 15. Oxford: Elsevier, 2012. Pages. 2116-2128.

    SPEAS, P. “On the syntax and semantics of evidentials”. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 5. Chistesher: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008. Pages. 940-965.

    SPERBER, D. “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation”. Philosofical Topics, 29,1. Arkansas: Arkansas University Press, 2001. Pages. 401-413.

    SPERBER, D.; WILSON, D. “Irony and the use-mention distinction”. Philosophy, 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Pages. 143-184.

    STALNAKER, R.C. “A theory of conditionals”. IN: HARPER W. L.; STALNAKER, R.; PEARCE, G. (eds.). IFS, 15. Dordrecht: Springer, 1968. Pages. 41-55.

    STARAKI, Eleni. Greek modal verbs. PhD Thesis. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2013.

    STEINER, J.; BÄCHTIGER, A.; SPÖRNDLI, M.; STEENBERGEN, M.R. Deliberative politics in action: analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

    STENVOLL, D. “Slippery slopes in political discourse”. IN: TERRELL, C.; JERNEJ, P. Political Language and Metaphor. London: Routledge, 2008. Pages. 44-56.

    STEUTER, E.; WILLS, D. At war with metaphor: Media propaganda and racism in the war on terror. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008.

    STIGLITZ, J. E. Globalization and its Discontents. US: W.W. Norton & Co, 2002.

    STIVERS, T. “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position”. Research on language and social interaction, 38, 2. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis, 2005. Pages. 131-158.

    STIVERS, T.; MONDADA, L.; STEENSIG, J. (eds.). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

    STRÅTH, B.; WODAK, R. “Europe- Discourses- Politics- Media- History: Constructing ‘Crises’?”. IN: TRIANDAFYLLIDOU, A.; WODAK, R.; KRYZANOWSKI, M. (eds.). The European Public Sphere and the Media. Houndmills: Pelgrave-MacMillan, 2009. Pages. 15-33.

    STUBBS, M. “‘A Matter of Prolonged Field Work’: Notes Towards a Modal Grammar of English”. Applied Linguistics, 7, 1. 1986. Oxford: Oxford Academic. Pages. 1-25.

    SUCHMAN, M.C. “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional approaches”. Academy of Management Review 20,3.: New York: Briarcliff Manor NY, 1995. Pages. 571-610.

    SWEETSER, E. “Mental spaces and the grammar of conditional constructions”. IN: FAUCONNIER, G.; SWEETSER, E. (eds.). Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Pages. 318–33.

    TANNEN, D. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. New York: Ballantine Books, 2012.

    TRAUGOTT, E.C. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English.” Language, 65. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America, 1989. Pages. 31–55.

    TRAUGOTT, E.C. “Intersubjectification and clause periphery”. English Text Construction, 5, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012. Pages. 7-28.

    TRAUGOTT, E.C.; DASHER, R.B. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    TRAUGOTT, E.C. “(Inter) subjectivity and (inter) subjectification: A reassessment”. IN: DAVIDSE, K.; VANDELANOTTE, L.; CUYCKENS. H. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 2010. Pages. 29-74.

    TSAKONA, V. “Linguistic Creativity, Secondary Orality, and Political Discourse: The Modern Greek Myth of the ‘Eloquent Orator’”. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 27. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2009. Pages. 81-106.

    TSAKONA, V. “The Greek state and the plaster cast: From the Greek military junta of 21 April 1967 to the IMF and EU’s rescue mechanism”. Metaphor and the Social World, 2, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012a. Pages: 61-86.

    TSAKONA, V. (2012b). Linguistic creativity and institutional design: The case of Greek parliamentary discourse. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies. 36. 91-109. 10.1179/030701312X13238617305734.

    TSANGALIDES, A. Will and Tha: a comparative study of the category future. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 1999.

    TSANGALIDIS, A. “Modals in Greek”. IN; HANSEN, B.; DE HAAN, F. (eds.) Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Pages. 139-163.

    TSANGALIDIS, A. “Evidentiality and Modality: Evidence from Emerging Evidentials in Greek”. Paper presented in The Nature of Evidentiality, Leiden University, 14-16.6.2012. TSANGALIDIS, A. “Modals in Greek”. IN: HANSEN, B.; DE HAAN, F. (eds.). Modals in the Languages of Europe: A Reference Work. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. Pages. 139-163.

    TURNBULL, W.; SAXTON, K.L. “Modal expressions as facework in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say ‘no’ right now”. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 2. Oxford: Elsevier, 1997. Pages. 145-181.

    TURNER, J.H. “The evolution of emotions in humans: A Darwinian–Durkheimian analysis”. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 26, 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996. Pages.1-33.

    TURNER, J.H. “Toward a general sociological theory of emotions”. Journal for the theory of social behaviour, 29, 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999: Pages: 133-161.

    TURNER, J.H. Human emotions: A sociological theory. London: Routledge, 2007.

    TZIOVAS, D. 2001 "Residual Orality and Belated Textuality in Greek Literature and Culture". IN: GEORGAKOPOULOU, A.; SPANAKI M. (eds.). A Reader in Greek Sociolinguistics. Studies in Modern Greek Language, Culture and Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001. Pages. 119-134. (First published in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies 7, 2 [1989]:321-335).

    UNGER, C. “Allegory as trope and as genre:a cognitive-pragmatic account”. Paper presented in the 2nd Literary Linguistics Conference. Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 2017.

    VAARA, E. “On the discursive construction of success/failure in narratives of post-merger integration”. Organization studies, 23, 2. London: Sage, 2002. Pages. 211-248.

    VAARA, E. “Struggles over legitimacy in the Eurozone crisis: Discursive legitimation strategies and their ideological underpinnings”. Discourse & Society, 25, 4. London: Sage, 2014. Pages. 500-518.

    VAARA, E.; TIENAR, J. “A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations”. Academy of Management Review, 33, 4. New York: Academy of Management, 2008. Pages. 985-993.

    VAN LEEUWEN, T. Discourse and Practice. New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

    VAN LEEUWEN, T.; WODAK, R. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis”. Discourse Studies, 1, 1. London: Sage, 1999. Pages. 83–119.

    VAN DER AUWERA, J.; PLUNGIAN, V. “On modality's semantic map”. Linguistic Typology 2, 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1998. Pages. 79-124.

    VAN DER VALK, I. “Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France”. Discourse and Society 14, 3. London: Sage, 2003. Pages. 309–348.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage, 1998.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. “Political discourse and political cognition”. IN: CHILTON, P.; SCHÄFFNER, C. (eds.). Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2002. Pages. 204-236.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. “War rhetoric of a little ally. Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimization of the war in Iraq”. Journal of Language and Politics, 4, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Pages. 65-91.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. Discourse and Context. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008a.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. Discourse and Power. Houndmills,: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2008b.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. Society and Discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009a.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. “Critical discourse studies: a sociocognitive approach”. IN: WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. [second edition]. London: Sage, 20092b. Pages. 62-86.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. “Discourse, Knowledge, Power and Politics. Towards Critical Epistemic Discourse Analysis”. IN: HART, C. (ed.). Critical Studies in Context and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. Pages. 27-64.

    VAN DIJK, T.A. Discourse and Knowledge. A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

    VAN LEEUWEN, T. “Legitimization in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse and Communication, 1, 1. London: Sage, 2007. Pages. 91-112.

    VAN LEEUWEN, T. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

    VAN MAANEN, J. Tales of the field: on writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

    VAROUFAKIS, Y.; HALEVI, J.; THEOCHARAKIS, N. Modern Political Economics. Making Sense of the Post-2008 World. London: Routledge, 2011.

    VAROUFAKIS, Y.; PATOKOS, T.; TSERKEZIS, L.; KOUTSOPETROS, S. Η οικονομική κρίση στην Ελλάδα και την Ευρώπη το 2011 [The Economic Crisis in Greece and Europe in 2011]. Athens: Observatory of Economic and Social Developments INE-GSSE, 2011.

    VELOUDIS, I. “Stressed na and unstressed na” [In Greek]. IN: Y. AGOURAKI et al. (eds.). Greek Linguistics 99: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Nicosia, September 1999. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2001. Pages. 243-250 VELOUDIS, I. On the Semantics of Modern Greek: Aspects of Epistemic Modality. [in Greek]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2005.

    VISSER, J.; HEMERIJCK, A. A Dutch Miracle: Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Corporatism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1997.

    WALSH, C.; BYRNE, R.M. “The mental representation of what might have been”. IN: MANDEL, D. R.; HILTON, D. J.; CATELLANI, P. (eds.). The Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking. London: Routledge, 2005. Pages. 61-74.

    WAREING, S.; THOMAS, L. Language, Society and Power. London: Routledge, 1999.

    WEBER, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press, 1977.

    WEBER, M. Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

    WERTH, P. Text worlds: representing conceptual space in discourse. Harlow: Longman, 1999.

    WHITT, R.J. Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2010.

    WILLET, T. “A Cross-linguistic survey of Grammaticalization of Evidentiality”. Studies in Language, 12, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. Pages. 51-97.

    WILLIAM, F. Linguistic semantics. London: Routledge, 1992.

    WILLIAMSON, T. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

    WILSON, J. “Political discourse”. IN: SCHIFFRIN, D.; TANNEN, D.; HAMILTON, H.E. (eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Pages. 398-415.

    WODAK, R. “The genesis of racist discourse in Austria since 1989”. IN: COULTHARD, C. R.; COULTHARD, M. Texts and practices: readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge, 1996. Pages. 115-136.

    WODAK, R. “Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis”. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15,1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Pages. 203-225 WODAK, R. “Politics as Usua”: The discursive construction and representations of politics in action. Houndmills: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2009.

    WODAK, R. “'Anything Goes’ - The Haiderization of Europe”. IN: WODAK, R.; KHOSRAVINIK, M.; MRAL, B. (eds.). Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. Pages. 23-38.

    WODAK, R.; ANGOURI, J. (eds.). “From Grexit to Grecovery: Euro/Crisis Discourses”. [special issue] Discourse and Society, 25, 4. London: Sage, 2014.

    WODAK, R.; DE CILLIA, R. “Commemorating the past: the discursive construction of official narratives about the rebirth of the second Austrian Republic”. Discourse and Communication, 1, 3. London: Sage, 2007. Pages. 337-363.

    WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 2001.

    WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. “Critical discourse analysis: history, agenda, theory and methodology”. IN: WODAK, R.; MEYER, M. (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 20092. Pages. 1-33.

    XIANG, G. “Evidentiality, Subjectivity and Ideology in the Japanese History Text-book” Discourse and Society, 26, 1. London: Sage, 2014. Pages. 29-51.

    YULE, G. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    ZAGZEBSKI, L. “What is knowledge”. IN: GRECO, J.; SOSA, E. (eds.). The Blackwell guide to epistemology. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 1999. Pages. 91-116.

    ZAREFSKY, D. “Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation”. Argumentation, 22. Heidelberg: Springer, 2009. Pages. 317-330.

    ZEELENBERG, M. “Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making”. Journal of behavioral decision making, 12, 2. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 1999. Pages. 93-106.

    ZEELENBERG, M; VAN DIJK, E. “A reverse sunk cost effect in risky decision making: Sometimes we have too much invested to gamble”. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18,6. Oxford: Elsevier, 1997. Pages. 677-691.

    ZEELENBERG, M.; VAN DIJK, W.W.; MANSTEAD, A. S. R. “Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment”. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 75, 2. Oxford: Elsevier, 1998. Pages. 117-141.

    ZIEM, A. Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014. ŽIŽEK, S. First as tragedy, Then as farce, London: Verso, 2009.